Visitor Counter

Visitors Since Blog Created in March 2010

Click Below to:

Add Blog to Favorites

Coyotes-Wolves-Cougars.blogspot.com

Grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, coyotes, cougars/ mountain lions,bobcats, wolverines, lynx, foxes, fishers and martens are the suite of carnivores that originally inhabited North America after the Pleistocene extinctions.
This site invites research, commentary, point/counterpoint on that suite of native animals (predator and prey) that inhabited The Americas circa 1500-at the initial point of European exploration and subsequent colonization.
Landscape ecology, journal accounts of explorers and frontiersmen, genetic evaluations of museum animals, peer reviewed 20th and 21st century research on various aspects of our "Wild America" as well as subjective commentary from expert and layman alike. All of the above being revealed and discussed with the underlying goal of one day seeing our Continent rewilded.....Where big enough swaths of open space exist with connective corridors to other large forest, meadow, mountain, valley, prairie, desert and chaparral wildlands.....Thereby enabling all of our historic fauna, including man, to live in a sustainable and healthy environment. - Blogger Rick

The document as I read it emphasizes range-wide conservation beyond the U.S. with little focus on what your agency and others can or will do here in the Southwest. I am especially disappointed to see it ignores the urgent need for connectivity conservation.

I attach my comments suggesting an alternative vision and emphasis. Prior to preparing a jaguar recovery plan based on the outline, I would appreciate your consideration of conservation biology and jurisdictional issues raised. A written response to my comments would be appreciated.

Sometime between fifteen and thirty thousand years ago, probably in the Middle East, the long, protracted process of domestication began to alter the genetic code of the wolf, eventually leaving us with the animals we know and love as domestic dogs. While there are several different theories as to exactly how dog domestication began, what is clear is that there were some wolves who were less fearful of humans than others. Over time, those wolves were incorporated into early human settlements. Perhaps humans and early dogs learned to hunt cooperatively – both species hunt primarily by outrunning their prey – or perhaps early dogs instead learned that they could avoid hunting by scavenging on the leftovers of human hunting parties. Whatever the initial reason for the incorporation of wolves into human society, there their descendents still remain.

By sharing an environment with humans, dogs left behind their ancestral environment and found a place in a new one. No longer would they have to hunt to eat; humans would come to provide for their care and feeding. It is probably no accident that the relationship between dogs and their owners mirrors the attachment relationship between parents and their children, behaviorally and physiologically. Indeed, humans who have strong bonds with their dogs have higher levels of oxytocin in their urine than those with weaker bonds.

But it isn’t only the source of their food that changed as wolves became dogs; their entire social ecology changed. Instead of sharing social space primarily with other wolves, dogs came to treat humans as social partners. This is one of the critical differences between a domesticate and a wild animal that is simply habituated to the presence of humans. Domestication is a genetic process; habituation is an experiential one. Domestication alters nature, habituation is nurture.

Several years ago, scientists at Eotvos University in Budapest wanted to determine whether the social-cognitive differences among dogs and wolves was primarily genetic or experiential. To do this, they hand-raised a group of dog puppies and a group of wolf pups from birth, resulting in roughly equivalent experiences. Any differences between the two groups’ social cognitive skills, then, would be attributable to genetics.

Wolf and dog pups were raised by humans starting four to six days after birth, before their eyes had fully opened. For the first months of their lives, the wolf and dog pups were in close contact with their human foster parents nearly twenty-four hours per day. They lived in the homes of their caregivers and slept with them at night. They were bottle-fed, and starting on the fourth or fifth week of life, hand fed with solid food. Their human caregivers carried them in a pouch so that the wolf pups and dog puppies could participate in as much of their daily activities as possible: traveling on public transportation, attending classes, visiting friends, and so on. Each of the pups had extensive experience meeting unfamiliar humans, and at least twice a week, they were socialized with each other as well as with unfamiliar adult dogs. The guiding principle for the hand-rearing paradigm, according to the researchers, was based not upon competition or aggressive interactions, but “to behave rather like a mother than a dominant conspecific.”

Would wolves, having been raised by humans, demonstrate social-cognitive skills that approached the sophistication of dogs? Or is social-cognitive aptitude encoded in dogs’ genes, a direct result of domestication?

In one simple task, a plate of food was presented to the wolf pups (at 9 weeks) or to the dog puppies (both at 5 weeks and at 9 weeks). However, the food was inaccessible to the animals; human help would be required to access it. The trick to getting the food was simple: all the animals had to do was make eye contact with the experimenter, and he or she would reward the dog with the food from the plate. Initially, all the animals attempted in vain to reach the food. However, by the second minute of testing, dogs began to look towards the humans. This increased over time and by the fourth minute there was a statistical difference. Dogs were more likely to initiate eye contact with the human experimenter than the wolves were. This is no small feat; initiating eye contact with the experimenter requires that the animal refocus its attention from the food to the human. Not only did the wolf pups not spontaneously initiate eye contact with the human experimenter, but they also failed to learn that eye contact was the key to solving their problem.

A second experiment, conducted when the wolves and puppies were between four and eleven months old, found similar results. Each animal was presented, in different testing sessions, with two different types of tasks. First, each of the wolves and dogs was trained to retrieve a food reward by opening a bin (in one task) or pulling a rope (in the second task). Then, after they had mastered the task, they were presented with an impossible version of the same problem. After attempting to retrieve the food, the dogs looked back towards the human caregivers. The wolves did no such thing. Dogs spontaneously initiated a communicative interaction with the humans earlier, and maintained it for longer periods of time, than did the human-reared wolves, who all but ignored their human caregivers.

How much time passed before the animals would look back towards their human caregivers?

Both dogs and wolves were equally adept at learning the two tasks, indicating that there were no group differences in terms of motivation or physical abilities, but large differences emerged when given impossible problems to solve. In both impossible tasks, as well as in the earlier eye contact experiment, dogs instinctively shifted their attention away from the food and towards the humans. Despite the fact that they had been fully socialized, the wolves treated each of the situations as physical problems rather than social ones. Only rarely did they ever attempt to engage in a communicative problem-solving interaction with a human. It’s not that wolves are unintelligent; it’s quite the opposite, in fact. Wolves are cooperative hunters, skilled at negotiating within their own social networks. It’s just that even after being raised by humans, wolves simply do not see humans as potential social partners. The dogs, however, quite rapidly took a social approach to solving each problem they were given. In one sense, this is a remarkable example of tool use. Only in this case, the humans were the tools, and the dogs the tool-users.

About the Author: Jason G. Goldman is a graduate student in developmental psychology at the University of Southern California, where he studies the evolutionary and developmental origins of the mind in humans and non-human animals. Jason is also Psychology and Neuroscience Editor for ResearchBlogging.org and Editor of Open Lab 2010. He lives in Los Angeles, CA. Follow on Google+. Follow on Twitter @jgold85.

By Ken Cole On April 30, 2012 · The Wildlife News received this photo recently of a lynx captured in eastern Washington State. I just thought people might be interested in seeing just how big and beautiful they are. This one is obviously under the influence of tranquilizers.

After a long time without any being documented there have been two Canada lynx documented in Idaho this year but they are not officially part of Idaho’s fauna and their habitat has not received any special designation in Idaho despite being protected under the Endangered Species Act.

The DEEP reminds residents to take steps to reduce contact and conflicts with black bears. "These steps become increasingly important as bears emerge from winter hibernation looking for food and because the state's bear population is growing," the press release detailed.

The growing population is estimated by the DEEP at about 500 bears.

Glimpsing a bear in Connecticut was once unlikely because bears were extirpated
from the state by the mid-1800s. Since then, bears have made a comeback. Their
return is due, in part, to the regrowth of forestland throughout the region
following the abandonment of farms during the late 1800s. Beginning in the
1980s, the DEP Wildlife Division had evidence of a resident black bear
population. Since then, annual sighting reports have increased dramatically,
indicating a rapid increase in the bear population. With the number of bears
increasing in the state, it is important for residents to learn the facts about
black bears and how to coexist with them.

So far this spring, the DEEP said they have already received several reports of bears traveling through populated areas and coming into contact with humans and domestic animals. "When bears emerge from their winter dens, natural foods are scarce and, as a result, bears are often attracted to human-provided foods found near homes."

Susan Frechette, DEEP Deputy Commissioner stated, "Most conflicts occur when bears are attracted close to homes by food sources that are easy for them to access, such as bird seed, garbage, and residue on grills. This can lead to more serious problems, including habituated bears that have lost their fear of humans."

Household garbage should be stored in closed garages or sheds, states the DEEP or in cases where that can not be done, trash receptacles should be cleaned with ammonia to discourage pilfering by bears and other animals. Other items that can attract bears include pet and livestock foods, sweet or fatty food scraps in compost piles, and fruit-bearing trees.

Although uncommon, the DEEP states that bears may attack and kill livestock, such as sheep, goats, pigs, and fowl. "They also can destroy unprotected beehives. One of the best precautions for these problems is well-maintained electric fencing. Other recommendations for livestock growers include moving animals into sheds or barns at night, keeping feed contained, keeping animals as distant from forested areas as possible, and using guard dogs."

Tips to Avoid Problems With Black Bears:

NEVER feed bears.

Take down, clean, and put away birdfeeders by late March. Store the feeders until late fall. Clean up spilled seed from the ground.

Store garbage in secure, airtight containers inside a garage or storage area. Double bagging and adding ammonia to cans and bags will reduce odors that attract bears. Periodically clean garbage cans with ammonia to reduce residual odor. Garbage for pickup should be put outside the morning of collection and not the night before.

Supervise dogs at all times when outside. Keep dogs on a leash when walking and hiking. A roaming dog might be perceived as a threat to a bear or its cubs.

If you encounter a bear while hiking, the DEEP recommends that you make your presence known by yelling or making other loud noises. "Usually, a bear will move from an area once it detects humans. If a bear does not retreat, slowly leave the area and find an alternate hiking route."

Though the bear population continues to swell and be of concern to some residents, prevention and tolerance are necessary for coexisting with bears in Connecticut, states the DEEP. "It is important to remember that although black bears regularly travel near houses, they are rarely aggressive toward humans and can usually be frightened away by making loud noises, throwing sticks, or spraying with a garden hose."

In the rare instance when a bear appears to be aggressive toward people, residents should contact the DEEP Wildlife Division's Sessions Woods office at 860-675-8130

Indiana DNR won't believe black bear sighting

ndystar.com

BY:Skip Hess

Bob Haskin said he was excited when he made a call to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources on April 20 to report his sighting of a black bear in Northwest Indiana.The person taking the call wasn't as excited, according to Haskin."He said, 'There are no black bears in Indiana.' I told him that I know a black bear when I see one and that it definitely was a black bear," Haskin said in a recent phone interview.But the DNR listener insisted again, "There are no black bears living in Indiana.""I said, 'Well, then, I saw one vacationing in Indiana.' I don't think he appreciated that very much," Haskin chuckled.

Haskin, who lives near Winter Haven, Fla., said he was driving north on I-65, south of the Roselawn exit, when he first saw the bear at the 220-mile marker on that sunny Friday afternoon."It was 1:05 p.m. and it came from the west and was headed east. It didn't seem like it was scared or was running from something," he said. "It was just galloping across the northbound lane. It looked over its right shoulder and kept the same cadence and speed."Haskin estimated the bear's weight at between 200 and 250 pounds. He said he is certain other travelers saw what he saw because some vehicles slowed and pulled slightly off the road.

Haskin wished the DNR had taken him seriously, he said, because once the bear crossed the interstate, it went into a plowed field and would have left tell-tale paw prints."It really doesn't matter to me," he said. "I'm concerned that kids may be out playing in the woods, or someone could be hunting (and be confronted)," he said.

If this story sounds familiar, you might recall a Feb. 19 column about a man who wanted to know if there were black bears in Indiana. A Jackson County resident insisted he saw a black bear on his property.

DNR spokesman Phil Bloom said conservation officers had indeed confirmed a black bear report six years ago.Bloom said a man had a video of a black bear in his backyard near Muscatatuck National Refuge in Jackson County. He said that how the bear got to Jackson County and where it went after the sighting is unknown.

The DNR has confirmed that mountain lions and wild (feral) boars are in Indiana.
Oh," Haskin said when told about the Indiana boars, "you don't want those!" He explained that they are damaging property all over Florida. "Once you get them, you can't get rid of them."

As for the black bear sighting, I believe Haskin.Why not? The Ohio Department of Natural Resources estimates there are about 100 adult black bears (some sows with cubs) in that state.
Wild black bears also are in Illinois, Michigan and Kentucky

UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA LYNX RESEARCH

A bit about the project...

This research focuses on the
biological mechanisms driving population cycles of the Canadian lynx (Lynx
canadensis) with specific attention paid to habitat fragmentation and climate
change hypotheses. Persistent and regular population cycles produced by
specialist predators and their prey are a rarity in nature, but Canadian lynx
and snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) display such a pervasive 10-year cycle. A
recent breakdown in southern lynx cycles and falling population numbers in the
US highlight threats to the integrity of boreal forest habitats, and may portend
more widespread consequences of continued boreal forest fragmentation. An
alternative hypothesis is that global warming is eroding the seasonality that
maintains the 10-year cycle.

Our research objectives are to 1)
regionally document the 10-year cycle break down at southern latitudes, 2)
evaluate if barriers to lynx gene flow (hence dispersal) exist on a latitudinal
gradient using genetic data, 3) use a sample of radiocollared lynx to create a
model of habitats that facilitate dispersal, and 4) examine timeseries dynamics
relative to climate data to evaluate the seasonal-forcing hypothesis.

Understanding dispersal trends is essential for managing habitat
fragmentation and protecting habitat connections in southern Alberta and British
Columbia. Likewise, climate change might be rapidly dismantling population
cycles in the boreal forest. The persistence of lynx near the Canada-US border
may depend on either quality of dispersal connections with the core Canadian
population or stemming the progression of climate change before it permanently
alters the species' dynamics. This study will help wildlife managers maintain an
important predator in southern Canada. This research will also be used to inform
forestry and other resource extraction industries, the trapping industry, and
the collective knowledge of population ecology.

The location of radiocollar fieldwork is the Central Eastern Slopes area of the
Rocky Mountains. This foothill and mountain forest region is in the area
surrounding and west of Nordegg, Alberta at Latitude 52.29 N Longitude 116.05 W.
The Central Eastern Slopes area is densely forested. However, the region is
primarily provincial crown land and therefore supports natural resource use
including forest production, trapping and outdoor recreation, and oil and gas
well sites.

OBJECTIVES- This proposal focuses on mechanisms driving population
cycles of the Canadian lynx in southern portions of their range by evaluating
the predator dispersal versus the seasonal-forcing hypothesis (see lynx ecology
page). The objectives are to 1) regionally document the 10-year cycle break down
at southern latitudes, 2) evaluate barriers to gene flow (hence dispersal)
across a latitudinal gradient, 3) use radiocollared lynx to create a robust
GIS-based model of habitats that facilitate dispersal into the southern portions
of the species’ range, and 4) examine timeseries dynamics relative to climate
data to evaluate the seasonal-forcing hypothesis.

METHODS- To
quantify the breakdown of the lynx cycle on a fine scale (objective one)
trappers’ harvest data will be compiled for Alberta, BC, Yukon, and NWT from the
Hudson’s Bay Company Archives prior to1950 and provincial registered fur
management areas (traplines) between 1950 and 2006. We will aggregate harvest
data among adjacent areas having similar dynamical patterns based on Moran’s I
(Moran 1950) and analyze the north-south gradient using timeseries methods
organized spatially in a geographical information system (GIS).

The third step involves radiocollaring a sample of 20 lynx in the
Central Eastern Slopes area of the Rocky Mountains in Alberta, collaborating
with Washington Fish and Wildlife’s efforts to collar 5 lynx in Washington east
of Ross Lake, and utilizing a lynx movement dataset collected previously by NWT
Fish and Wildlife in the northern range. The Rocky Mountain sample constitutes
the southernmost tip of the core population where we expect the greatest
potential for dispersal through the Kettle River Mountains towards the
BC-Washington border as well as down the Rocky Mountain foothills towards the
Alberta-Montana border. We will characterize and map dispersal habitats by
estimating a GIS-based step selection function (SSF) to characterize habitat
selection by lynx in the three locations (Fortin et al. 2005). The SSF/dispersal
map will identify movement barriers throughout the region (Chetkiewicz et al.
2006). Landscape-based movement barriers will be compared with gene-flow
barriers for a holistic understanding of lynx movement in the region.

SIGNIFICANCE- Persistent and regular population cycles are a major
force creating a periodic rhythm in boreal ecosystems (Krebs et al. 2001).
Localized examples of a dampened southern lynx cycles in Alberta and British
Columbia as well as declining populations in the US highlight threats to the
integrity of forests in western Canada and adjacent Border States. These changes
have direct implications for the consequences of increasing fragmentation and
climate change in the boreal forest (Schneider 2002). This study evaluates if
either climate change or barriers to dispersal is the main biological mechanism
behind the breakdown of southern lynx cycles. If seasonality is the primary
driver, my analysis will provide evidence of how climate change is altering
essential population cycles. If dispersal is the primary driver, we will have
habitat/dispersal maps identifying barriers to movement through key lynx
habitats. This will allow me to model scenarios in which industry might modify
their practices to maintain persistent lynx populations and dispersal
connections throughout the range. The project results will inform the
sustainable use of Canada’s forest habitats for functioning ecological processes
and long-term economic viability in Alberta and British Columbia.

FWP to consider free-ranging bison in management study

greatfallstribune.com

Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks announced Friday plans to move forward with study of a long-term conservation plan for bison that will evaluate a range of alternatives from establishing free-ranging bison that could be hunted to doing nothing.

Meetings in eight cities will be conducted to gather comments beginning May 14 in Missoula and ending May 24 in Bozeman. In between, meetings will be conducted in Kalispell, Glasgow, Billings. Helena, Miles City and Great Falls.

The meetings are the first step in crafting a long-term bison conservation and management plan by FWP, said Arnie Dood, a Bozeman-based FWP native species biologist and bison specialist.Dood promises a transparent process and says the state has no preconceived idea of what direction to take.

"The real issue is, 'Where are we going to go with bison in Montana?'" Dood said. "The question being, 'Is there a place to manage bison as wildlife in Montana?' That's what this process is intended to do."

Hunters from the village of Ulukhaktok, N.W.T. knew there was something different about the polar bear they were stalking but couldn't put their finger on it.It was far more aggressive than anything they were used to. They even called off the dog for fear the large white mammal would kill it.

On closer inspection after it was shot and killed, it turned out not to be an ordinary polar bear but one that was a cross between a polar bear and a grizzly, unofficial known as "grolar bear" and "pizzly.""The first hybrid we had ever seen around here a few years ago was pretty nasty. They (hunters) usually stalk the polar bear using a dog but this bear was so aggressive they couldn't use a dog on them. It was too dangerous," Robert Kuptana, who lives in the western Arctic hamlet of about 400 people on Victoria Island, told the Toronto StarFriday.

Over the years as grizzly bears have wandered further north following the Caribou herd, the hybrid variety has become more common, the 69-year-old Kuptana said, adding that just 10 days ago, a hunter from the village, Pat Ekpakohak, and his two grandchildren killed three of them.
"One is pure white, one is partly dark and the other is fairly dark brown and the top part is white," said Kuptana, who took a picture of the skins. Polar bear and grizzly habitat overlaps in the western Canadian Arctic around the Beaufort Sea. Grizzlies are known to occasionally to go out on the ice in the spring to feed on seals killed by polar bears, according to the Canadian Wildlife Service.

A DNA test conducted by the Wildlife Genetics International in British Columbia on a bear shot and killed by an American hunter in 2006 confirmed it was a hybrid, making it the first documented case in the wild.Ian Stirling, a research scientist and polar bear expert with the Canadian Wildlife Service in Edmonton, said in an interview with National Geographic that the hybrid was "definitely not" a sign of climate change.

Andrew Derocher, a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta, is in Ulukhaktok, where he is doing polar bear research and saw the skins from the three hybrids.
He told the Star, "It seems to me they are getting a lot more common, at least in this part of the
Arctic."

"I think the story here . . . is that the number of grizzly bears on Victoria Island has increased quite markedly over the last 20 years. And part of that might be related to changing environmental conditions up here. It's a bit warmer and it's quite clear the grizzly bears are well-established here now and, of course, there is a healthy population of polar bears around," he said.

David Paetkau, president of Wildlife Genetics International, based in Nelson. B.C., told the Star it was a "quirky" development that can't be totally explained and that he was only interested in talking about substantive work that his firm does.

<a href="<a href="http://polldaddy.com/poll/6166583/">http://polldaddy.com/poll/6166583/</a>">It's the time of year when moose sightings peak. What do you think about moose?</a>

"What we are trying to do here is get the population down to allow the recovery of the forest, so it's a bit of a different approach," he said.
The hunting area will also be larger in 2012. It will include everything below the Long Range Mountains.
Deering said snowmobiles will be permitted inside park boundaries during the cull because animals will be taken from a large, remote area.
"As long as snow conditions are suitable for snowmobiling, it will be allowed," he said.
Furthermore the coming season will also be longer. It's set to begin in mid-October and run until Jan. 27.
Increasing the number of moose licences to 900 doesn't guarantee that 900 animals will be killed — Deering said fewer than 200 moose were removed from the park last year, even though 500 moose licences were issued for hunting within it.

Lose wolves, lose the wilderness

By John Thompson;yukonnews.com

A wolf is shot with a tranquilizer dart as part of the Yukon government's radio-collaring program. Yukon's wolf population is one of the most studied in the world.

Bob Hayes has some advice for Yukoners who want to revisit the wolf cull: don't bother.
"It's completely not worth it," he said.Hayes worked as Yukon's wolf biologist for 18 years, until 2000. During that time he helped design and deliver Yukon's wolf control programs.

His conclusions? It's costly. It often doesn't work, and when it does, its effects are always temporary.
And, ultimately, it cheapens the Yukon by transforming wilderness into a glorified meat farm.

Hayes has, quite literally, written the book on the subject: Wolves of the Yukon. It's a decade in the making, and, by luck, its release later this month coincides with a review of the territory's wolf management plan.

Yet our many efforts to curb wolf numbers in the territory have proven to be a dismal failure. Not poison, nor trapping, nor aerial shooting has made any more than a temporary dent in wolf numbers.
Today, Yukon's wolf population remains essentially unchanged from what it was believed to be 10,000 years ago. The territorial government believes we have approximately 4,500 wolves - one of them for every eight of us.

Wolves take too many moose and caribou calves, is the common refrain. Yet wolves are just doing what wolves have done here for thousands of years.During that time, moose and wolves have co-evolved, shaping each other's migration and reproduction patterns. Hayes suspects the Yukon timber wolf's reliance on moose is the reason why our wolves are among the biggest in the world.

In wildlife management circles, wolf "control" is almost always a euphemism for kill. But we've tried it all, and none of it has made a lasting impact on wolf numbers.Between 1982 and 1997, Yukon's wildlife branch conducted broad scale wolf killing programs to boost the number of moose, "at great cost to taxpayers," according to Hayes. During that time helicopter crews shot 849 wolves in the Coast Mountains, Finlayson and Aishihik.In the Coast Mountains, moose numbers remained stagnant. Hayes believes that's mainly because grizzly bears, rather than wolves, were killing most calves. In both Finlayson and Aishihik, moose populations exploded - an apparent success. But, once wolf control stopped, wolf numbers bounced back within just four years.

As a result, Finlayson's moose and caribou populations spiked, then spiraled back to where they started within a decade.Aishihik saw similar results. The killing of 189 wolves allowed moose numbers to double and caribou to triple. But, within a decade of the wolf cull, these populations had sunk yet again.

The lesson learned? For wolf-killing to be effective, it would need to be repeated every few years. Hayes questions whether Yukoners have the stomach, or deep pockets, to keep it up. He clearly remembers how Yukon's wolf kill program drew the condemnation of animal rights protesters across the country, who converged on Whitehorse."They burned tires on the Alaska Highway, chained themselves in the Yukon legislature, damaged our aircraft, followed me to work, and stalked my house," he writes. "I had a real concern and fear for the lives of my family and crew. I lost a close friendship with a good family over wolf control that remains a raw memory years later."

If we don't shoot wolves, then what? Hayes sees more promise in a wolf sterilization program he helped run in Aishihik at that time. But this, too, would be a costly solution to maintain.

Haye's preferred solution? "Leave them alone. Just leave them alone. Things will work themselves out."

But, if Yukoners must kill wolves to allow moose numbers to grow, he'd like to see this only done on a small scale, near affected communities. To this end, Hayes offers a practical suggestion: end Yukon's "archaic trapline ownership restrictions that give a few trappers the exclusive right to trap areas around communities, or not."

Yukon has low moose populations compared to elsewhere in Canada for good reason. "The Yukon is a complete wilderness," Hayes writes. Part of that means having to share big game with predators.
Hayes looks at how Alaskans have driven bears and wolves away from Anchorage and Fairbanks for many decades. The result: a dramatic rise in the number of moose nearby, of up to 100 moose for every 100 kilometres, compared to the Yukon average of 15 moose over the same area.
That's a sevenfold increase in density. It's also replacing wilderness with something else.
"It is wildlife farming," writes Hayes. "Is that what we want in the Yukon?"

This is not merely a philosophical concern. Tourists flock to the Yukon in large part because of the allure of its wilderness. "They may not want to meet these dangerous beasts close up, but most tourists revel in simply knowing that grizzly bears and wolves exist and they could be just around the next bend in the river," Hayes writes.

Yukon has one big advantage over Alaska, as Hayes sees it: there are far fewer of us. Alaska's population is nearly 700,000, while Yukon's population is close to 35,000.It also helps that Yukon's wolves are among the best-studied in the world. To date, scientists have tracked the movements of nearly 400 of them with radio collars."If we can't do it here, we can't do it anywhere," said Hayes.
But that will likely require an adjustment of our expectations. Hayes frequently hears a telling expression in hunting circles: "I didn't get my moose."There's nothing wrong with the desire to live off of local meat. "But it's not your moose," said Hayes.

"We can't all get a moose all the time, because natural predators are going to regulate that population."Hayes, it should be noted, is no tofu-munching animal-rights radical. He hunts. He's never shot a wolf, but he knew when he accepted his government post that a big part of his job would be helping to kill them. He accepted the job because it was a chance to learn more about these fascinating animals.

Agree with Hayes or not, Wolves of the Yukon ought to be required reading for anyone who plans to weigh in on the wolf control debate, which should heat up soon.
.

When you have the opportunity to restore an old, abandoned logging road what do you do with it? Let nature take its course and allow the vegetation to grow over it? Or do you dig it up and give nature a boost? And which one of these practices will restore the area to its original state?

These are the questions Y2Y's US Conservation Director, Rebecca Lloyd, is asking in her research dissertation, and her results are staggering.

Digging is expensive. Is it worth the cost?

Lochsa Road Reclamation

There are two commonly used road recovery practices in forest management. Abandon a road and let the vegetation grow back on its own; or 'recontour' it using large machinery and return the site to its original physical state.

In the past ten years, the United States spent millions of dollars attempting to reclaim legacy logging roads that were no longer needed. Many resource managers chose to recontour a road because from past experience the practice seemed to provide many benefits; but they had no research to compare the two methods.

Resource managers were under pressure to show that recontouring produced ecological benefits that justified the greater expense. This spurred them to ask Rebecca to investigate the issue.

Accelerating restoration by thousands of years

Comparisons of road restoration treatments show dramatic differences.

"Preliminary results," explains Rebecca, "suggest that recontouring methods return major ecological functions to the same state as never-roaded reference areas. This means recovery is accelerated by thousands of years."

10 Years Later

The difference may, in fact, be in the ground. The data indicates that in just 10 years after recontour, key soil properties like soil organic matter, carbon, and nitrogen were not different from never-roaded reference areas. By comparison, abandoned roads proved to have very little soil nitrogen or carbon. Carbon and nitrogen are critical nutrients that control forest productivity and are necessary for making forest ecosystems more resilient to climate change.

What is perhaps more important than soil is water. Even after 50 years of regrowth, abandon roads remain compacted. During storm events, abandon roads store very little water in the soil and produced more runoff, while recontoured roads behave just like natural ground.

Implications for Forest Managers

Rebecca's work has the potential to be one of the most influential studies on road recovery long-term forest management practices. As climate change stresses our forested ecosystems through reduced snow packs and more rain-on-snow events, restoration will become an increasingly important solution to mitigate the consequences.

Rebecca reminds us that roads can have devastating consequences on habitat, wildlife and watersheds.

"Our communities depend on these forested areas to provide water, reduce the number of floods, and provide high quality fish and wildlife habitat. By using one road recovery method over another," she continues, "we can effectively give nature the boost it needs to regain its natural state and alleviate the potential effects of climate change."

Ranchers shift from traps to dogs to fight coyotes

Peter Fimrite

San Francisco Chronicle

Big Otis, a Great Pyrenees dog, watches over the sheep at Barinaga Ranch in Marshall in unincorporated Marin County.

Marcia Barinaga was hustling around making cheese, answering phone calls and handling business at her ranch in Marshall the other day, but the real work was going on in the lush green fields, where most of her 230 sheep were grazing.

There, spread out in several pastures among the woolly flock, were four big, white dogs, seemingly lolling about as if they didn't have a care in the world, but, in rural western Marin County, they are the difference between success or failure, life and death.The 80- to 115-pound dogs - Oso, Big Otis, Shep and Gordy - are Great Pyrenees, one of the most dedicated livestock guardian breeds in the world.

Their presence reflects a radical change in the livestock industry, which has, for a century, relied almost exclusively on traps, bullets and poison to control canine predators. The practice of using the dogs is not only encouraged in Marin County, in some cases it's subsidized. "There is no other program like this that we are aware of in the country," said Camilla Fox, the executive director of Project Coyote, a national nonprofit headquartered in Larkspur. "We believe it sets a model for other communities to emulate and tailor to their needs."

Marin's nonlethal predator control program is important statewide, Fox said, especially now that the first gray wolf since 1924 has been tracked to California. The wolf, known as OR7, is now in southern Siskiyou County.

Barinaga says that without her Pyrenees, probably neither the sheep nor Barinaga Ranch would survive."There is a mountain lion that has been seen on our ranch quite a bit, and we hear the coyotes every night," Barinaga said. "I see coyotes on the ranch all the time. But we have lost no sheep at all to predators."

Llamas work, too

More than two dozen ranchers in the rugged coastal hills and prairies of rural Marin have purchased guardian dogs and, in some cases, llamas to protect their flocks over the past decade, a time that coincided with a huge increase in the number of coyotes in the county.

Unlike coyotes, wolves were wiped out in the lower 48 states by a campaign of trapping, shooting and poisoning. They were reintroduced to Yellowstone National Park and Idaho starting in 1995 and are now thriving.

Fox said the powerful agricultural and hunting lobbies have embarked on a national campaign against wolves, winning approval for hunting and trapping in Idaho and Wyoming and pushing for more control measures, such as aerial gunning, at taxpayer expense. "There is still a very deeply entrenched vilification of predators and a view that they are either vermin to be exterminated or trophies to be hung on a wall," said Fox, who acknowledges that wolves are tougher than coyotes but contends that aggressive guardian dogs can still be effective. "We need a new paradigm in the way we coexist with native carnivores," she said.

Dogs as saviors

The dogs in Marin have reduced predation and, according to the sheep ranchers, saved an industry that 14 years ago was struggling mightily just to remain viable. "They've been a savior," said Joe Pozzi, a fourth-generation rancher who grazes sheep and cattle in Sonoma and Marin counties and has six dogs guarding them. "I think most ranchers would agree that if it wasn't for the guard dogs that we all have, the sheep industry would look a lot different right now."

Things were different in West Marin as recently as 1996. At that time, federal trappers were in charge of capturing and killing coyotes.Guardian dogs were discouraged out of fear that they would be captured in traps or killed by poison laid out for the predators.

In 1996, a furor erupted in Marin County over the proposed use of livestock protection collars - containing poison - on sheep. At that time, coyotes were killing hundreds of lambs and ewes every year. The collars, which contained bladders full of lethal Compound 1080, or sodium fluoroacetate, would poison the coyotes when they attacked.

It was around this time that Fox created the Marin Coalition for California Wildlife and began pushing the county to adopt nonlethal predator control methods.Fox, who co-wrote the book "Coyotes in Our Midst," said she believes the nationwide effort to exterminate coyotes has actually caused their population to increase by disturbing the pack hierarchy and, in turn, allowing more coyotes to reproduce. In a pack, only the alpha coyotes mate. When the alpha is killed, all the animals disperse and breed.

Banning traps, poisons

The effort became a movement in 1998 when California banned the use of steel-jawed traps and poisonous collars. Over the next two years, the county formed the Marin Livestock and Wildlife Protection Program, which essentially used the money once paid to federal trappers to help ranchers build fences, night corrals and lambing sheds, and purchase guardian dogs.

The program now has 26 ranchers employing 37 guard dogs and 31 llamas to protect 7,630 animals on 14,176 acres, according to Stacy Carlsen, the Marin County agricultural commissioner.

The number of sheep killed by coyotes in Marin has decreased steadily since the program began, Carlsen said. In the fiscal year 2002-03, 236 dead sheep were reported. In 2010-11, 90 sheep were killed, according to county records.

The numbers have fluctuated over the years - 247 sheep were killed in 2007-08 - but very few ranchers suffer the kind of heavy losses that were common a decade ago. Records show one rancher lost 57 sheep in 2002-03. Last year, 14 of 26 ranchers in the livestock protection program did not have a single loss. Only three ranchers had more than 10.

"For me. it has changed the whole outlook of raising sheep out here," Pozzi said. "It gives us a fighting chance."In addition to the dogs, which can cost $500 each, the program helped pay for 30 miles of fences, electrification, noisemakers, lights and motion sensors. The budget has nevertheless been reduced. It was $50,000 in 2001 and is now down to $20,000 a year, Carlsen said.

'My dogs are professionals'

Besides Great Pyrenees, Marin ranchers also use Akbash, Maremma, Anatolian shepherds and komondors, all large breeds that instinctively bond with and protect sheep.

"I like to say that my dogs are professionals. My sheep are the entire focus of their lives," Barinaga said. "They'll defend the sheep till their death if they have to."

Imagine walking into a grocery store and all the shelves and aisles are barren and bleak. Where has the food gone? Would you return to that store or would you look for your groceries elsewhere?

This is what it is like for the terrestrial wildlife of our coast when they are in some forests that were harvested between the 1950s and 1980s, using historical methods like clearcutting.

Many of these areas, like parts of the Kennedy Flats, were later replanted as second-growth forests with Douglas-fir.Unfortunately, Douglasfir is better suited to well drained soils and is considered offsite and ecologically inappropriate for most of the Kennedy Flats.n these second-growth forests, trees usually grow close together and are dense, with little to no gaps in the canopy.

This canopy cover limits the amount of light reaching the forest floor, which inhibits plant growth and diversity, creating a dark, un-vegetated forest.

Wolves in mature forest

Vegetation is important to both forest and stream ecosystems.For terrestrial wildlife, understory vegetation provides important habitat characteristics, which include but are not limited to, providing cover and security, habitat for prey, and a safe travel corridor.The lack of habitat found in dense second-growth forests or disturbed harvested sites can result in wildlife, such as deer, wolves, bears and cougars, coming into the margins of nearby communities.

Grizzly in mature riparian habitat

Central Westcoast Forest Society (CWFS) and Pacific Rim National Park Reserve are working together to restore the second-growth forest in the riparian area.The riparian zone is the area adjacent to streams. It offers many benefits to wildlife, from providing travel corridors for safe movement between habitat types to promoting the dispersal of wildlife populations.

Although it can take hundreds of years for a forest to acquire old-growth characteristics, there are silviculture treatments like thinning, creating snags and gaps, which can accelerate the process. For 15 years, CWFS restoration crews have used silviculture treatments and planted native vegetation and conifer seedlings to rebuild the biodiversity of the riparian areas that feed wildlife.The goal is to revitalize these areas to resemble the neighbouring old growth forest and to allow nature to do the rest. As vegetation returns, the hope is that species such as deer, wolf, bear and cougar will follow.

Puma in established grassland

There has been a dramatic increase in large mammals and ungulates making their way into unnatural terrain over the last few years.We are currently experiencing a high volume of wolf activity in our neighbourhoods. This increase is relative to habitat degradation caused by industrial operations and development, and a lack of attention to areas affected by historical logging.

Parks Canada wildlife biologist, Bob Hansen states, "As always I think it is food driven. If they have an abundant and dependable localized food source then their need to travel outside these areas diminishes significantly." We can support diverse and healthy ecosystems within the park by increasing food availability, which will help keep our communities safe by working to limit predator and people interactions.

Local organizations, including Central Westcoast Forest Society, complete valuable work as they restore forest and stream habitats by hand and saw. The resulting replenishment of the forest may provide an increase to the 'groceries' local wildlife need to thrive.

WOLVES! We know that many people around the world love wolves, and others hate them. In Thompson, Manitoba, the Wolf Capital of Canada, we are taking the position that wolves are "An Ecological and Economic Asset".

Located in the middle of Canadian wilderness, human-wolf conflicts here are rare. Wolf sightings are common. In this regard, we will be releasing a Wolf Economy Discussion Paper very soon.

To further open-minded discussion of the role and value of wolves, we invite the world to attend a Northern Hemisphere WOLF & CARNIVORE CONFERENCE on October 23-24, 2012.

Keynote speakers from Canadian, American and Russian universities and wildlife societies will attend.

Four major Themes will be presented covering wolf science and wolf eco-tourism.

A Call for Abstracts has been made.

An exciting, pre-conference, optional charter tour will be offered to Churchill, Manitoba – the Polar Bear Capital of the World - during polar bear migration season.

Full details, Registration Forms, Call for papers, Travel information, website info, etc. is shown herein. Due to logistics, there may be a LIMIT of only 100 attendees.

Please mark the dates on your calender and budget. Stay tuned. Our website will provide new information as it becomes available.

Contact us throughwolfconf@yahoo.com with questions or to get on our email list. We respect your privacy and will not give or sell your address to anyone else!

Wolf regulations pass in Wyoming, move to feds

rapidcityjournal.com; Christine Peterson and Jeremy Pelzer

One of the most contentious animals in Wyoming moved one step closer to being hunted, with very little fanfare.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Commission on Wednesday approved a hunting season for wolves that would begin Oct. 1, if the animals are removed from the endangered species list. It also approved rules on how to manage the wolves in and outside of the hunt areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could decide on the listing by Oct. 1.

The plan would allow 52 wolves to be harvested this fall in northwest Wyoming. It also would create three types of management areas:A trophy game management area that would be most of northwest Wyoming outside of federal lands such as Yellowstone National Park. Here wolves could only be hunted according to hunting regulations.

A seasonal trophy game management area in northern Lincoln and Sublette counties where wolves would be trophy animals from Oct. 15 to the end of February. The rest of the year they would be predators similar to the rest of the state.

A predator area, which would be all of the state outside of northwest Wyoming and the Wind River Indian Reservation where wolves would be classified like coyotes.

Rick Kahn, a wildlife biologist with the National Park Service, wants the commission to consider creating smaller hunt areas around Grand Teton National Park if the packs that live in the park are facing too much hunting pressure. It's not something the commission needs to change right now, but something it can consider in the future, he said.

Some questioned the requirement to report a wolf kill in the hunting area within 24 hours to the statewide hotline instead of the standard 72 hours for other trophy carnivores.Officials chose 24 hours because they were not sure how many and how early wolves would be killed, said Mark Bruscino, large carnivore management section supervisor with the Game and Fish Department. That time frame could be changed in the future.

Representatives from some groups, including the Wyoming Outfitters and Guides Association and the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, said they supported the plan.The management plan now rests with the Interior Department.Gov. Matt Mead said he expects the department to publish a final rule by Oct. 1, in time for the fall hunting season.

The biggest threat to the wolf plan now is likely the prospect of lawsuits by environmental groups claiming the deal would decimate Wyoming's wolf population to the point that it's no longer viable.

U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., tried in vain last year to insert a clause in an Interior appropriations bill to ban any legal challenges to the wolf deal. Congress passed a similar clause in a budget bill last year to prohibit lawsuits against wolf delistings in five other Western states.

Mead said Wednesday at a media conference in Cheyenne that he and Wyoming's congressional delegation are working to try again for a Wyoming no-sue clause, though he said he wasn't yet sure if they would draw up another budget clause or introduce stand-alone legislation.

Mead urged environmental groups to think twice about suing, saying they should recognize that the plan is scientifically sound, has been agreed to by top Interior officials, and has been worked on for more than a year with input from a wide variety of groups.

"It is not just something that we came up with that is just good for Wyoming," Mead said. "It's an agreement by a lot of parties who have worked on it."

The department says it appears that mountain lions in Missouri are largely young males moving in from western states, and that there's no evidence the animals are breeding in Missouri.Mountain lions are protected by law, but Missouri allows people to protect themselves and their property if they feel threatened.

Letter: If we want to curb deer population, why not a natural predator baltimore sun.com

I am writing concerning the letter by Dr. Camay Woodall in the April 18 edition of the Towson Times ("Deer problem around Towson is threat to property, and safety"), concerning the number of deer in the Towson area.I fully agree with Dr. Woodall that the deer population is too large and presents hazards to people's health and the environment.

While allowing a limited hunting season in order to cull the population is a good idea, I think there is better, more environmentally-friendly alternative to bring the deer population to a manageable level.I'm talking about introducing wolves into the Loch Raven reservoir are — in particular, the red wolf (canis rufus).

The Red Wolf and the Eastern Wolf are one and the same

Some still live in North Carolina, where they prey upon white-tailed deer. Being one of the more endangered species of wolves, it would be a big boost for the area, showing the rest of the state how much Towson cares about its natural bio-diversity, while at the same time bringing the deer population down.
As an added bonus, their nocturnal ululations would warm the hearts of Towson area residents lucky enough to live adjacent to or near the Loch Raven woods.

Just as the growing black bear population is helping to bring Western Maryland back its natural heritage, red wolves could be just the thing for this issue.

U.S. Forest Service Spends $40.6 Million for Lands in 15 States

newswire.com
Environmental News Service
WASHINGTON, DC - The U.S. Forest Service is investing $40.6 million to acquire 27 pieces of land in 15 states that the agency says will help safeguard clean water, provide recreational access, preserve wildlife habitat, enhance scenic vistas and protect historic and wilderness areas.

"In keeping with the Obama administration's America's Great Outdoors conservation initiative, USDA is committed to conserving and restoring our forests and bringing jobs to rural America," said Vilsack. "Through our partnerships with states, communities, tribes and others, it is vital that we step up our efforts to safeguard our country's natural resources."

The money is made available through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, created by Congress in 1964 to provide funding to federal, state and local governments to purchase land, water and wetlands. The fund receives most of its money through royalty payments from offshore oil and gas revenues to mitigate the environmental impacts of those activities.

Lands are purchased from willing sellers at fair-market value or through partial or outright donations of property. Landowners may also sell or donate easements on their property that restrict commercial development while keeping the land in private ownership.
"The pristine wildernesses, flowing waters and majestic vistas help define what makes this country great," said U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. "These projects will help ensure a long future of quality open space for those hunters and anglers, hikers, campers and other nature lovers who enjoy America's great outdoors. The funding will also reduce administrative costs and provide us increased flexibility in how we restore lands across the country."

The fund supports goals set out in President Obama's America's Great Outdoors initiative, including the need to support locally-led efforts to protect and renew rivers and other waters; conserve and restore national parks, wildlife refuges and other federal lands and waters; and enhance recreational access and opportunities. The projects were selected through a competitive process based on ability to safeguard watersheds, provide recreational access, restore healthy forests, mitigate climate change, defend communities from wildfire, create management efficiency, and reconnect fragmented landscapes and ecosystems.

These new projects are approved for funding in 2012. Alaska:

Cube Cove /Admiralty National Monument, Tongass National Forest: With the exception of limited shoreline on Cube Cove, the land is entirely surrounded by Admiralty National Monument/Kootznoowoo Wilderness. Three main watersheds are within the parcel and the acquisition will result in preservation or restoration of the unique coastal island ecosystem in perpetuity. $500,000

Misty Fiords National Monument, Tongass National Forest: The monument is a national showcase of pristine lands and waters where the scenery, wildlife and recreation opportunities are abundant. The acquisition will reduce private land ownership within the wilderness and avoid private development that would conflict with wilderness values. $500,000

California:

Hurdygurdy, Six Rivers National Forest: The land on the Smith River National Recreation Area covers portions of three streams, including the Hurdygurdy, a designated as Wild and Scenic River that serves as refuge and vital spawning habitat for Coho and Chinook salmon and steelhead and coastal cutthroat trout. The acquisition will help restore and improve fish and wildlife habitats and development of public recreational access and dispersed recreation sites. $1 million

Deer and Mill Creek, Lassen National Forest: The parcel of land will help complete a continuous protected fish and wildlife habitat area along about 30 miles of Deer Creek, one of the most productive salmon-producing streams in the Sacramento River system. As a dam-free stream with little development, Deer Creek has abundant fish and wildlife. $1.5 million

Eldorado Meadows, Eldorado National Forest: This project is part of the Sierra Nevada Checkerboard Initiative, a large ongoing effort to address land ownership patterns intermingled with private and public land. $1.5 million

Stony Creek Consolidation; Shasta-Trinity National Forest: This parcel, within the congressionally designated Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area, is a donut hole in the midst of Forest Service recreation facilities on the shore of Lake Shasta and is threatened with incompatible subdivision and development. Acquisition will preserve the high quality visual character of this key recreation area while preventing lakeshore degradation and habitat fragmentation. $800,000

Fleming Ranch, San Bernardino National Forest: Will conserve and enhance resources in the San Jacinto Mountains in part by implementing fire and biofuels management that would prevent emissions release, maintain sequestration in forests, and through restoration practices advance carbon migration. $1.5 million

Sierra Nevada Inholdings, Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests: Will leverage a large land donation to purchase vital areas threatened by incompatible development. This acquisition will preserve an ancient petroglyph, as well as conserve meadows, wetlands and riparian areas at the headwaters of the American and Yoba rivers. $2 million

California/Oregon/Washington:

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, multiple national forests: The area was one of first two congressionally designated national scenic trials. The acquisition will help protect critical portions of the 2,650 mile trail system that stretches from Mexico into Canada. The land will help protect key wildlife corridors that support the migration of the grey wolf, grizzly bear, elk, deer, coyote and moose as well as protecting the trail from encroaching development. $1 million

Colorado:

Little Echo Lake, Arapaho National Forest: The acquisition will forever preserve a spectacular mountain lake and surrounding land adjacent to the 17,000-acre James Peak Wilderness Area and concurrently protect Denver's water supply. Adding the parcel to the national forest also will enhance recreational opportunities by providing legal access into the wilderness area and nearby Continental Divide Trail. The area is home to the federally threatened Canada lynx as well as the Boreal toad and wolverine which are designated by the Forest Service as sensitive species. $950,000

Ophir Valley, Uncompahgre National Forest: The acquisition will protect breathtaking mountain vistas, including a portion of the Howards Fork drainage, a narrow steep valley roughly 2,500 feet below the top of Ophir Pass, and areas that link Telluride to Silverthorne. Recreational access for hunting and four-wheel drives, fishing rock climbing, sightseeing, camping, hiking and horseback riding will be significantly enhanced. $1.5 million

Georgia:
Georgia Mountains and Rivers, Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest: Georgia's national forests are near population centers numbering in the millions, creating tremendous pressures for clean water and recreation on the nearby public lands. These acquisitions focus on providing recreation opportunities and protecting watershed and wetlands in an area where the viability and availability of clean, abundant water is critical. $2 million

Idaho:
Salmon-Selway Initiative Area, Salmon-Challis and Sawtooth National Forests: The Morgan Ranch is an old homestead that lies upstream from the Middle Fork of the Salmon River within the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area. The 18 miles of Sulphur Creek, a tributary of the Middle Fork, provides significant spawning and rearing habitat for three species of fish listed under the Endangered Species Act: Chinook salmon, steelhead trout and bull trout. $3.5 million

Upper Lochsa, Clearwater National Forest: The parcel includes habitat for threatened steelhead and bull trout, denning and foraging habitat for Canada lynx, critical elk winter range and portions of the Nez Perce National Historic Trail. The Nez Perce Tribe has contributed more than $7 million in non-federal monies toward aquatic habitat restoration in the Upper Lochsa drainage area and proposes to continue funding of roughly $1 million per year. $1 million

Indiana:
Hoosier National Forest: This project is focused on the protection of the Lost River, a subterranean river that is associated with the second largest cave system in the State. The river supports a unique ecosystem that has been found to contain at least 15 globally-imperiled subterranean species. Acquisition of this parcel will protect several sinkhole entrances to the Lost River cave system. $466,000

Michigan:
Great Lakes/Great Lands, Hiawatha and Ottawa National Forests: This acquisition will directly support the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by protecting watershed health and integrity in the Great Lakes region. The project will also help ensure the conservation of the Sturgeon Wild & Scenic River and associated wetlands. These parcels provide travel connectivity for the endangered Eastern Gray Wolf and the threatened Canadian Lynx as well as habitat for other sensitive and endangered species. $640,000

Missouri:
Missouri Ozarks, Mark Twain National Forest: The land, which include prime riparian river frontage on the Current River, will help connect existing national forest lands to the Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Consolidating the lands will help protect watershed quality and provide maximum benefit for both resident and migratory wildlife species. $990,000

Montana:
Legacy Completion, Lolo and Flathead National Forests: The project will enhance resource management within and adjacent to the Crown of the Continent by protecting healthy watersheds, diverse habitats for threatened and endangered species, and open space on a landscape-scale and public access to high quality recreation opportunities. This parcel is a part of the Montana Legacy project, one of the most ambitious conservation projects in modern Forest Service history and includes a 111,740 acre donation from conservation partners. $2 million

Tenderfoot Part I, Lewis and Clark National Forest: The Tenderfoot watershed in Central Montana is remarkably diverse spanning areas from 3,200 feet elevations sub-alpine mountains to grass meadows and riparian areas. The acquisition parcels will provide high quality water and fisheries habitat for west slope cutthroat trout, and habitat for elk, moose, deer and many other wildlife species. The land offers incredible scenic views and extraordinary recreation opportunities, especially for anglers and hunters. $2 million

New Mexico:
Miranda Canyon Phase I, Carson National Forest: The land offers breathtaking views from its numerous ridges and peaks of the Rio Grande Gorge to the west and Wheeler Peak to the north. Historical features include the Camino Real Trail, unique geologic features such as a small volcano and 1.7 billion-year-old rock outcrops that rival the age of rocks found at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. Hunting, sightseeing, camping, hiking, interpretation and horseback riding will be enhanced. $3,442,000

North Carolina:
North Carolina Threatened Treasures, National Forests in North Carolina: Nationally, land managed by the National Forests in North Carolina rank second in recreation visits but are among the most vulnerable to adjacent commercial and residential development. Forest fragmentation is a major issue and the acquisition will help to ensure recreation access, ecological integrity and watershed values on adjacent federal lands and for downstream resources. $1 million

Oregon:
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest: One of America's most treasured landscapes, Hell's Canyon is renowned for its natural, historical, archaeological and recreational values. The properties will serve as public gateways to thousands of acres of public lands and are home to 14 key fish and wildlife species, including Oregon's largest Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep herd. The land also contains habitat for rare plants and at-risk bird species including the yellow breasted chat, mountain quail, Lewis' woodpecker and willow flycatcher. $1,417,500

Oregon/Washington:
Pacific North West Streams, multiple national forests: Lands selected for acquisition include key habitat for at-risk fish stocks. Immediate public benefits will be secured public access, increased recreation opportunities and more efficient long-term management and restoration of key stream, riparian areas, tidal marsh and estuary needed for bird and wildlife recovery. $1.1 million

Tennessee:
Rocky Fork, Cherokee National Forest: This acquisition will provide protection for what was recently one of the largest contiguous tracts of private forest land in the East. The Forest Service identified Rocky Fork as a "national priority" because of its high natural resource values and recreational opportunities including a portion of the Appalachian Trail, blue-ribbon trout fishing, and a variety of recreational activities such as wildlife watching, rock climbing and hunting. $5 million

Utah:
Bonneville Shoreline Trail, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest: This parcel is becoming one of the last undeveloped areas on the Wasatch Front for traditional summer/winter range for deer and elk. Several parcels have historical nesting habitats for peregrine falcon, a sensitive species. Unique features, such as waterfalls and montane riparian areas add to the biological and recreational value of the land. $600,000

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest: The land has historic significance because it once supported construction of the Trans-Continental Railroad as well as the early fur trapping and logging industries. The acquisition offers a rare opportunity to enhance public access and sustain recreational opportunities, protect wildlife and fish habitat and limit the spread of development. $1.2 million

Washington:
Washington Cascade Ecosystem, Wenatchee National Forest: The acquisition is part of a larger, landscape-scale effort to resolve the fragmented land ownership pattern across Washington's Central Cascades. Threading through the area are several north-south wildlife corridors that need to be protected and restored to preserve healthy wildlife populations. $1.5 million

Two Massachusetts Eastern Coyotes at their den site

Eastern Wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada

Aldo Leopold--3 quotes from his SAN COUNTY ALMANAC

"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect."

Aldo Leopold

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

Aldo Leopold

''To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."

Wildlife Rendezvous

Like so many conscientious hunters and anglers come to realize, good habitat with our full suite of predators and prey make for healthy and productive living............Teddy Roosevelt depicted at a "WILDLIFE RENDEZVOUS"

Recent Posts

Blog Disclaimer

This is a personal weblog. The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer. In addition, my thoughts and opinions change from time to time…I consider this a necessary consequence of having an open mind. This blog is intended to provide a semi-permanent point in time snapshot and manifestation of my various thoughts and opinions, and as such any thoughts and opinions expressed within out-of-date posts may not be the same, nor even similar, to those I may hold today. All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. Rick Meril and WWW.COYOTES-WOLVES-COUGARS.COM make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. All information is provided on an as-is basis.